Arma 3: Confirmed features | info & discussion

[zukov 483]

today i have seen this video... i'm afraid that the community alpha will comes out with this unfinished reloading animations (the lmg is simply awful).... someone has any news about it?

fF9OvmjE4A0

[Maio 293]

Ugh... it's an Alpha Build... as in " Oh look at me, I'm in that stage of development where I'm still open to new features and major changes"

Despite the hand clipping and the invisible ammo belt ( which I hope is the same problem as the invisible magazines, which was fixed), I don't see what's wrong with it ( in a major way).

[zukov 483]

the lmg hasn't movement parts and the (glock?) pistol seems to have the old one

[JSj 12]

If you are bothered by such insignificant details, then just wait for the finished game to be released.

[zukov 483]

If you are bothered by such insignificant details, then just wait for the finished game to be released.

surely i will buy this game if finally will have the good animations,

[Tom1 10]

Lol, if you have the proper knowledge, hitpoints are more realistic than super formulas with bullet weight etc.

How? Well if you take a look at the effects of the round in real life and give it a value that will impliment those affects in real life then you have more realistically simulated the real world effects of the round than if you invented a formula that isn't 100% correct and probably is really advanced and slows down the game with lag.

People don't think those kinds of extended scripts slow down the game but if that were true I wouldn't experience a 10fps increase when playing without the ACE mod...

[Timnos 1]

Lol, if you have the proper knowledge, hitpoints are more realistic than super formulas with bullet weight etc.

Well respected military organisations (like the Royal Ordnance Factory) use damage model formulas to examine weapons performance when they can't access the classified armour performance data...

[HKFlash 9]

Well respected military organisations (like the Royal Ordnance Factory) use damage model formulas to examine weapons performance when they can't access the classified armour performance data...

Still, Tom1 does have a point.

[-Coulum- 35]

Lol, if you have the proper knowledge, hitpoints are more realistic than super formulas with bullet weight etc.

How? Well if you take a look at the effects of the round in real life and give it a value that will impliment those affects in real life then you have more realistically simulated the real world effects of the round than if you invented a formula that isn't 100% correct and probably is really advanced and slows down the game with lag.

People don't think those kinds of extended scripts slow down the game but if that were true I wouldn't experience a 10fps increase when playing without the ACE mod...

Good point - infact really, I think in the end, some form of hitpoints must be used in any game/simulation.

But one thing really lacking in arma due to its current system are things like deflection and randomness. Hit a tank 10 times in the front panel from the same distance, and ,from what tests I've done, every hit results the same. There is no "lucky hits" that totally anihalte the tank or "lucky deflections" that don't cause any damage to the functionality of the vehicle. Instead every single hit results the same.

Sometimes arma's system doesn't feel much different than those old platform games where you have 3 hearts before you die. I know, a huge exaggeration, but for a game so "realistic" you'd think there would be at least some variance from the effects of identical gunshot wounds, because in reality with small arms, besides shots crippling the central nervous system, it is very hard to predict how a person will react to being shot. In arma its the same every-time, if using the same weapon at the same distance.

Personally think there needs to be a more ravenshield/ghostrecon1 twist on the wounding system.

[Timnos 1]

Good point - infact really, I think in the end, some form of hitpoints must be used in any game/simulation.

Steel Beasts Pro/PE (Target audience: Military professionals and hardcore military simulation gamers) uses sophisticated algorithms to model damage. Factors such as projectile type/size/shape, armour angles, armour thickness, armour material, spalling through mechanical stress of round, etc are used to determine damage.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Steel Beasts Pro/PE (Target audience: Military professionals and hardcore military simulation gamers) uses sophisticated algorithms to model damage. Factors such as projectile type/size/shape, armour angles, armour thickness, armour material, spalling through mechanical stress of round, etc are used to determine damage.

But since we are on a PC wether something is broken or not is still going to be represented by a number. You can make the calculations as fancy as you like, its still hitpoints in some way.

EDIT: In the case of infantry, i doubt anyone would notice the difference between 'damage based on caliber +- random' and 'sophisticated algorithm modelling organs/bullet paths through bodies/etc'. In the case of tanks i would just like to see them stop exploding when i destroy the tracks.

Edited July 10, 2012 by NeMeSiS

[Timnos 1]

You can make the calculations as fancy as you like, its still hitpoints in some way.

Not if the calculations are simulating penetration capability of the round/shot placement/armour slope, etc.

In the case of tanks i would just like to see them stop exploding when i destroy the tracks.

Well that's what you get when using a hitpoint system...

[NeMeSiS 11]

Not if the calculations are simulating penetration capability of the round/shot placement/armour slope, etc.p

I still dont see how thats not a fancy (And i admit, really cool) system to calculate damage. And you can add a whole bunch of checks wether or not you would do any actual damage, and if you do, what it would penetrate and so on, but in the end its still a bunch of numbers which decide how much something gets damaged.

Well that's what you get when using a hitpoint system...

No. Tanks already consist of different parts since OFP, and it was already possible back then to disable tracks. However someone made the (imo retarded) design decision to make the whole thing explode once 1 part gets completely destroyed. Making the thing *not* blow up when 1 part gets destroyed has nothing to do with hitpoints at all.

[Timnos 1]

I still dont see how thats not a fancy (And i admit, really cool) system to calculate damage. And you can add a whole bunch of checks wether or not you would do any actual damage, and if you do, what it would penetrate and so on, but in the end its still a bunch of numbers which decide how much something gets damaged.

The difference is that Steel Beasts uses armor/penetration calculations, ArmA allows us to knock out a MBT through the frontal armour with small arms fire.

Making the thing *not* blow up when 1 part gets destroyed has nothing to do with hitpoints at all.

OK I wasn't aware of that.

[NeMeSiS 11]

The difference is that Steel Beasts uses armor/penetration calculations, ArmA allows us to knock out a MBT through the frontal armour with small arms fire.

Yeah, which can also be fixed with a 'minimumdamagerequired' parameter or something.

Its not that i am against improvements in this area, but saying that all the problems come from the fact that hitpoints are used just makes no sense, in the end you are still going to calculate damage in numbers, and compare this to the health of an object, which is also a number.

[EricM 0]

You simply need a cut-off point to avoid the "MBT killed by 1000 small pistol shots"

For instance :

Get the power value of the gun

Get the Armor value of the tank

and the global damage points of the vehicle (hitpoints)

if the power-armor < 0 then no damage is passed to the hull, otherwise substract (power-armor) points to the global hitpoints.

[PuFu 4591]

You simply need a cut-off point to avoid the "MBT killed by 1000 small pistol shots"

For instance :

Get the power value of the gun

Get the Armor value of the tank

and the global damage points of the vehicle (hitpoints)

if the power-armor < 0 then no damage is passed to the hull, otherwise substract (power-armor) points to the global hitpoints.

+1

wanted to put down a reply here since i've midday when i saw it on my phone:

The problem with hitpoints as it is now, is that there is no check between the power needed to do damage and the hitpoint pool available for an individual part -> hence you can blow up a tank with a pistol.

COmplicated ballistics would be welcomed, but not really needed as long as a middleground system (like EricM said) would be in place.

[neokika 62]

Hi,

The current "hit point" system in Arma 2 is not that bad like some seem to think.

BI does in fact make little use of it(some use can be seen on BC and FA modules), because if anyone wants, they can make a non-hitpoint damage for all types of vehicles, currently in Arma 2.

I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, because in vanilla it sure does need some, what I'm trying to say is that there's no hitpoint system if you handle it, say, within a script.

The suggestions bellow would be great if implemented within the HandleDamage Event handler, making what i said earlier a lot easier and openning new opportunities for modification.

For instance :

Get the power value of the gun

Get the Armor value of the tank

[-Coulum- 35]

You simply need a cut-off point to avoid the "MBT killed by 1000 small pistol shots"

For instance :

Get the power value of the gun

Get the Armor value of the tank

and the global damage points of the vehicle (hitpoints)

if the power-armor < 0 then no damage is passed to the hull, otherwise substract (power-armor) points to the global hitpoints.

Yes this would be a great improvement - but now to make it more realistic make the angle the progectile comes in have an effect. Ie instead of

(power-armour)

It would be

([power * sin(angle)]-armour)

Or even

([power * (sin(angle))^2]-armour)

to really make glancing/deflections noticeable and feel less "hitpointish".

Where "angle" is a value 0-90 that the incoming round impacts the armour at. It would result in direct hits delivering full damage and glancing hits only delivering partial damage.

Of course finding that angle probably wouldn't be exactly "trivial", but I think this would really make vehicle combat much more interesting. And if the angle calculation was only done for rounds with a higher original power than armour, I don't see why it would be too performance heavy.

And of course more hitzones, and different results for destroying each of them, will always be a win in my books, assuming they actually work.

Edited July 10, 2012 by -Coulum-

[pettka 694]

([power * sin(angle)]-armour)

Or even

([power * (sin(angle))^2]-armour)

Do You think the formula is this easy in a game, which simulates movement of stars in background? There is a lot more taken into account than You would think :icon_twisted:

[papanowel 120]

Do we still have the mk20 (f2000) in Arma III or it has been replace by an other gun? (I am a bit far from home and it is hard for me to follow all the news)

[roberthammer 582]

Do we still have the mk20 (f2000) in Arma III or it has been replace by an other gun? (I am a bit far from home and it is hard for me to follow all the news)

Yes , we still have mk20 - since we have the new MX rifle , the mk20 is probably a SF weapon in the game

[Tonci87 163]

Do You think the formula is this easy in a game, which simulates movement of stars in background? There is a lot more taken into account than You would think :icon_twisted:

I hope you guys expand on it and present us a realistic armor system soonâ„¢

[papanowel 120]

Yes , we still have mk20 - since we have the new MX rifle , the mk20 is probably a SF weapon in the game

Thank you for the clarification.

[Timnos 1]

Do You think the formula is this easy in a game, which simulates movement of stars in background? There is a lot more taken into account than You would think :icon_twisted:

I'll agree with that. My algebraic equations skills have never been strong, I can only imagine the complex math that you guys deal with. I know you guys have used this book -

that's a bloody thick book! my brain hurts just looking at it.